Knowledge Fight Interactive Search Tool

March 9, 2023 - Tim Pool Daily Show

01:17:07

Feds Just Got CAUGHT DESTROYING Evidence Of Involvement In J6, PROOF Feds WERE Involved JUST DROPPED

Feds Just Got CAUGHT DESTROYING Evidence Of Involvement In J6, PROOF Feds WERE Involved JUST DROPPED Become a Member For Uncensored Videos - https://timcast.com/join-us/ Hang Out With Tim Pool & Crew LIVE At - http://Youtube.com/TimcastIRL https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JyULcSF-Y4E #democrats #tuckercarlson Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

Participants

Main voices

tim pool

01:12:47

Appearances

Clips

josh hammer

00:33

matt taibbi

00:21

Large

Audio Only |

Scroll

Show episode speakers

Speaker	Time	Text
tim pool ▲ ● ▼		Become a member at TimCast.com.
		Click that Join Us button.
		If you want to help support the work we do, your membership helps make all of this work possible.
		Now, let's get into that first story.
		Well, Tucker Carlson is presenting evidence showing that the corporate press and the Democrats lied completely about what happened on January 6th.
		We have this breaking story from Julie Kelly.
		Drama in the Proud Boys trial yesterday after FBI agent caught lying on the stand and concealing evidence from defense attorneys.
		Motion filed this morning from Nick Smith, attorney representing Ethan Nordian.
		Not only is it being reported that the FBI agent lied on the stand, but that there were criminal informants involved who sought to have the records altered to conceal their presence.
		This is not just FBI lying on the stand.
		This is destruction of evidence.
		This could be a Brady violation, but more importantly, ladies and gentlemen, It seems.
		This may be, I'm trying to be very careful here, direct evidence of informant involvement in January 6.
		That's right.
		In this filing, they say, a criminal informant said, delete this information, delete this evidence, because it shows that I was present.
		And there it is.
		Right now, Ray Epps is trending.
		A lot of people have a lot of questions about this guy.
		We had Kash Patel on the show just a couple days ago talking about how it is beyond a reasonable doubt that there were federal agents and informants involved on January 6th.
		And now we have this.
		I'm not going to bury the lead.
		I'm going to scroll right down to it and make sure I can just show you immediately.
		First, what messages did FBI conceal from the defense?
		A request by an FBI informant to alter an official confidential human source report, quote, Edit out that I was present.
		An agent's request to Special Agent Miller to quote, go into a CHS report that Miller just put together and edit out that the agent was present.
		Whoa, whoa, whoa, whoa.
		So I got that one wrong a little bit.
		We're not talking about an informant who was present.
		It's an informant report.
		An agent was present.
		That's right.
		It's right here, right now, in the filing.
		Unless, of course, the, uh, uh...
		Unless, of course, this defense attorney and these filings are fabricated, it would appear that we have direct evidence of agent involvement in January 6th.
		That's it.
		There you go.
		Have a nice day, everybody.
		Thanks for hanging out.
		Oh, by the way, today's my birthday.
		If you want to support the work we do here, head over to TimCast.com and become a member by clicking the Join Us button.
		As a member, you are helping keep this operation up and running.
		We rely solely on you as members.
		We do have ad revenue, but ad revenue does not keep the lights on.
		So if you like the work we do and you want to get me a birthday present, TimCast.com, click Join Us, and let's get back to reading the news.
		I really want to drive this point home for everybody, but an agent was involved.
		Definitive proof.
		Okay, hold on.
		I gotta slow down.
		Preponderance of evidence that I would say places it well beyond a reasonable doubt when you combine all things together.
		Notably, the Ray Epps video.
		Kevin Dalton says Ray Epps did everything possible to incite a riot on January 6th.
		Ray Epps led the charge on the Capitol.
		Why does Ray Epps get a pass, but a cancer-stricken grandmother who did nothing more than trespass sit in solitary confinement?
		Interesting questions, indeed.
		Now, we don't know for sure, but it seems like we got evidence that agents were involved.
		Here's the thread from Julie Kelly, recently appearing on TimCast IRL to discuss some of these issues.
		She says, breaking, drama in the Proud Boys trial yesterday after FBI agent caught lying on the stand and concealing evidence from defense attorneys.
		Here's the filing.
		There's parts of it that she's posted.
		Today, Government Witness Special Agent Nicole Miller was cross-examined.
		She testified that she understood her legal duty under the Jenks Act to produce to the U.S.
		Attorney's Office written statements relating to the subject matter of her testimony.
		Miller acknowledged that among those statements were messages she sent in the FBI's link messaging system.
		Where bureau employees communicate with one another.
	She testified that in order to comply with her Jenks obligations, she compiled her link messages in an Excel spreadsheet, which was then produced to the USAO.
	The version of Miller's Excel sheet produced the defense contained 25 rows of her link messages.
	In cross-examination, the agent acknowledged she alone compiled that disclosure.
	She testified that those messages constituted a complete production of her jank statements from Link.
	However, a close examination of the agent's sheet revealed over 1,000 hidden Excel rows of messages.
	Miller was thus examined as to whether she had withheld from prosecutors link messages concerning whether 1.
	A conspiracy charge was factually supported in the Proud Boys case.
	There's more.
	Julie Kelly says this is what happens when a rogue corrupt FBI is allowed to lie to the public withhold information and operate without oversight to Congress.
	This agent or someone deleted thousands of messages in FBI's link messaging system.
	Messages relevant to the investigation and required to be produced to the Defense Council.
	Someone, according to this, it says the agent was the only one who compiled this information.
	The filing goes on.
	Today, government witness was cross-examined.
	Oh, this is the same filing, the next one.
	What messages did FBI conceal from defense?
	A request by an FBI informant to alter an official's confidential human source report.
	However, the filing says the agent in the filing An agent's request to Special Agent Miller to go into a CHS informant report that Miller just put together and edit out that the agent was present.
	Who's this agent?
	Julie Kelly says brazen lawlessness at FBI in its biggest January 6th case.
	Boss instructs FBI agent to destroy hundreds of items of evidence.
	Now, this, I believe, is hearsay, but still should absolutely be presented in court.
	If this is a slam-dunk case of seditious conspiracy, why is FBI destroying and hiding evidence?
	In this snippet of the filing, it says, Miller's Communications with another agent who states that the agent's FBI, quote, What?!
	Quote, boss assigned her 330 items of evidence I have to destroy.
	What?
unidentified		How do you outright say that?
tim pool ▲ ● ▼		From the hidden rows in Miller's link spreadsheet, it is apparent the defense has not received
		all of her Jenks statements in these relevant communications.
		That is because the individuals with whom Miller exchanges messages can be seen responding
		to the agent, but her own statements are missing.
		For example, consider the below hidden messages in Miller's link.
		Now I don't know if we have the below.
unidentified		Okay.
tim pool ▲ ● ▼		Julie says, even more egregious maybe, FBI accessed emails between one defendant and his attorney and discussed its contents.
		This agent apparently knew one defendant planned to go to trial.
		The judge excused the jury as soon as this info was revealed in court yesterday.
		Hearing shortly.
		So this is all going, this is crazy.
		This is a violation of attorney-client confidentiality.
		The filing says, finally, Nordian must be permitted to cross-examine Miller with the
		hidden link messages to determine whether defendants' Sixth Amendment rights have been
		violated through government collection of attorney-client communications about trial strategy.
		Weatherford v. Bursi. It says that defendants' Sixth Amendment rights are violated when the
		government gained access to the substance of the attorney-client conversations and thereby
		created at least a realistic possibility of injury to the defendant or benefit to the state.
		By email to chambers, the government argues that the attorney-client privilege is waived
		whenever a defendant communicates by jail email or phone with his counsel.
		This is obviously wrong. Y'all have seen movies and TV shows.
		You always have the scene where the person knocks on the door.
		They're in the interrogation, and the cop's like, Tell us who did the crime!
		And the criminal's like, I'll tell you nothing!
		And then there's a knock on the door, and the guy walks in and goes, I'm the attorney for Mr. Smith.
		Please give us the room.
		And the cop's to leave and turn the cameras off, and the lawyer is allowed to communicate with the client.
		Privileged.
		You can't spy on him.
		Why would that right be waived?
		Privilege, they call it.
		Attorney-client privilege.
		Why would it be waived?
		Because you're using email or phone in the jail.
		How else are you going to talk to your lawyer?
		Make him come down every single time?
		This is crazy stuff.
		I think that there's a correction jail conversation, Julie Kelly says.
		So let's break this down.
		Evidence was tampered with.
		An agent was present.
		They're withholding evidence from the defense, so not only just destroying it, but then you have the Sixth Amendment violation.
		Now, I don't know if it's a Brady violation, but let me show you this here.
		Brady Disclosure, Wikipedia, so we can understand a little bit.
		A Brady Disclosure consists of exculpatory or impeaching information and evidence that is material to the guilt or innocence or to the punishment of a defendant.
		The term comes from the 1963 court case Brady v. Maryland.
		So the basic definition is, here's some examples.
		The prosecutor must disclose an agreement not to prosecute a witness
		in exchange for their testimony. They must disclose leniency.
unidentified		Hey, it's Kimberly Fletcher here from Moms4America with some very exciting news.
		Tucker Carlson is going on a nationwide tour this fall, and Moms 4 America has the exclusive VIP meet and greet experience for you.
		Before each show, you can have the opportunity to meet Tucker Carlson in person.
		These tickets are fully tax-deductible donations, so go to momsforamerica.us and get one of our very limited VIP meet-and-greet experiences with Tucker at any of the 15 cities on his first ever Coast to Coast tour.
		Not only will you be supporting Moms for America in our mission to empower moms, promote liberty, and raise patriots, your tax-deductible donation secures you a full VIP experience with priority entrance and check-in, premium gold seating in the first five rows, access to a pre-show cocktail reception, an individual meet-and-greet, and photo with America's most famous conservative and our friend, Tucker Carlson.
		Visit momsforamerica.us today for more information and to secure your exclusive VIP meet and greet tickets.
		See you on the tour!
tim pool ▲ ● ▼		Bye!
		That is, the prosecutor has a duty to reach out to the police and establish regular procedures by which the police inform the prosecutor's office of anything that tends to prove the innocence of the defendant.
		The prosecutor must disclose arrest photographs.
		Some state systems have expansively defined Brady material to include many other items, including, for example, any documents which might reflect negatively on a witness's credibility.
		Police officers who have been dishonest are sometimes referred to as Brady Cops.
		Because of the Brady ruling, prosecutors are required to notify defendants and their attorneys whenever a law enforcement official involved in their case has a sustained record for knowingly lying in an official capacity.
		Sounds like the criteria has been met, in my opinion.
		So what does this all mean?
		The filing is interesting.
		I think it shows more proof that there were federal agents involved on January 6.
		Now, I don't know.
		In that filing, it says that it redacted that an agent was present.
		Present where?
		Was the agent present in a bedroom one month before?
		I mean, that matters to the defense, but it doesn't mean anything about January 6.
		However, it does mean this.
		Y'all have backed yourselves into a corner.
		Shout out to our corporate press friends and the liberals, because let me ask you a question.
		If the Proud Boys are being charged with seditious conspiracy, some of them, and an FBI agent was present in their midst during this, does that not mean that a federal agent was involved in the planning stages?
		Now, don't get me wrong.
		This is what informants do.
		Informants will go to a drug deal and then be like, oh, jeez, you're going to do this, and then go tell the cops.
		But this was an agent, not just an informant.
		So there's an agent there.
		Sound familiar?
		This is what the FBI does.
		The FBI has a history of sending agents into groups to orchestrate the crime itself.
		And it looks like this is where we're at right now.
		So I want to play this video for you guys.
		It's a viral clip many of you may have already seen.
		I think it's important because it's only about a minute long but many of you may have not seen it.
		This is a man named Ray Epps.
		Let me show you this video.
unidentified		Now watch this.
tim pool ▲ ● ▼		They all begin chanting Fed, Fed, Fed at Ray apps.
tim pool ▲ ● ▼		Funny, Ray Epps, who called repeatedly for people to go in, who led the charge onto the Capitol grounds, was accused of being a Fed well before any of this crazy J6 stuff went down.
unidentified		I don't even like to say it because I'll be arrested.
		Well, let's not say it.
		We need... We need to go... I'll say it.
		Alright.
		We need to go in... Shut the fuck up, Boomer.
		...to the Capitol.
		Based Fed posting?
		We need to go into the Capitol.
		I didn't see that coming.
		OK.
		We are going to the Capitol where our problems are.
		It's that direction.
		Please spread the word.
		All right.
matt taibbi ▲ ● ▼		No, Dave, but one more thing.
unidentified		Can we go up there?
unidentified		No.
matt taibbi ▲ ● ▼		When we go in, leave this here.
unidentified		You don't need to get shot.
		When we go in, he says.
		They've been planning this.
tim pool ▲ ● ▼		So let me point this out.
		Ray Epps says, when we go in, he clearly premeditated the breaching of the Capitol grounds into the building.
		Now that sounds like seditious conspiracy to me.
		He planned in advance to go in.
		He orchestrated in advance.
		Where's this guy at?
		Where's he at?
		You know, the funny thing is that you get people like Kinzinger on the J6 committee saying, ah, he didn't really do anything.
unidentified		It was all talk.
tim pool ▲ ● ▼		It was all talk.
		Let's watch a video of him actually breaching the Capitol.
		Capitol grounds.
unidentified		Here we go.
tim pool ▲ ● ▼		Barricade comes down.
		And hey, there's refs.
		Reportedly.
		capital grounds where after the barricades were breached there he is running
		now he's just jogging forward So, uh, my question is, you've got a guy on camera who clearly planned it.
		You've got a guy on camera rushing onto the Capitol grounds.
unidentified		Hmm.
tim pool ▲ ● ▼		Brandon Strzok was on the show last night.
		He never went in the building.
		He climbed, uh, my understanding is that he was on the steps and he was filming what was going on for a few minutes and then left.
		And then all of a sudden everyone was accusing him of being an insurrectionist.
		It's interesting.
		There's four sides to this building.
		There were many people who were at a peaceful rally that had a permit.
		The police opened the doors for them.
		There were many people on the other side who were violently fighting with cops, bashing them, and it was brutal and bad.
		Tear gas was going off, it was chaotic.
		Our friend Richie McGinnis was there, and it was crazy.
		People scaling walls.
		Now, there's two sides of this building in the official story.
		I mean, there's more sides than two, but I mean, like, in the story, you've got bumbling dottards on one side, the doors being opened by cops who waved them in, and then violence on the other side.
		The left and the liberals tell you that the violence was the only thing that happened.
		And every time you try to bring up that, hey, but you do realize one guy got acquitted because the cops waved him in, and that's probably going to ripple through a bunch of other criminal cases, because there's video of the cops waving people and opening the doors for people.
		Tucker Carlson released video of the Q Shaman, Jake Chansley, being escorted through the building by police, who even try to open doors for him!
unidentified		They walk up to a door, they try to open it for him, and then they bring him to another door and let him in.
tim pool ▲ ● ▼		It's amazing.
		He then thanks them for letting him do it.
		He says, thank you for the police for letting us in here.
		But if you're on the left, you don't know that.
		You don't watch the news, you don't watch the videos, all you know is whatever the cult tells you.
		It's funny.
		Man, how do you break through all this stuff?
		How do you get people to understand that they're being lied to and that something darker is happening?
		But let me tell you, my friends, you want to talk about civil war?
		Fine.
		If you think there's no civil war here or coming, I might agree with you.
		Because of stories like this.
		Because the federal government is clearly on Antifa's side.
		End of story.
		End.
		Of.
		Story.
		Now, don't get me wrong, there are still some elements that resist, but overwhelmingly, I mean, the far left is able to do whatever they want with impunity.
		We got this Proud Boys trial for a seditious conspiracy?
		Where's the federal arrest for the protesters in front of the Supreme Court Justice's homes?
		What about any kind of federal action against these Antifa extremists firebombing government facilities over the past several years and killing people?
		Sorry.
		I mean, it happens a little bit, don't get me wrong.
		You know, there's some reporting that these people are being arrested.
		But you have a massive national movement of far-left terrorists Seemingly no action against them.
		But if you're a little old lady who bumbled about and walked into a building because the cops fanned you in, you're in solitary?
		So yeah.
		Maybe there's not going to be a civil war, as I say, because it's a revolution and it's already happening and y'all are already losing.
		Look, I don't know.
		I don't want to be the bearer of black pills.
		I don't think that in the long run we all lose everything.
		I think in the long run the system collapses.
		And then you'll live your life.
		Humans have always made it through every challenge set before them for thousands upon thousands of years.
		And the United States, I believe, is resilient, but no empire lasts forever.
		So this could be the collapse of the U.S.
		It could lead to destabilization of the globe.
		You know what that means?
		Honestly, the world will change, but I think you'll be fine.
		All of these problems we see that we want solved, it's because we don't want the system to collapse, because we want to expand, we want to develop, we want life to get better.
		Me personally, I want to see space colonization.
		But you know what'll happen if this all breaks down, if the United States fails?
		It means that you'll go back to living a normal life like your great-grandparents probably did.
		Or your great-great-grandparents.
		This idea that you can wake up, stare at a phone, go work some job where you type into a computer is insane.
		I mean, many of you listening are probably listening while you're actually working and lifting heavy objects and building things or maintaining things.
		But so much of our economy is based upon nonsense.
		Insurance salespeople.
		Look, no offense if you sell insurance, but we got computers for it all now.
		You can just type it in, press enter, and the whole thing's automated.
		It's unprecedented that so many of our jobs are being automated away.
		Granted, I mean, the Industrial Revolution happened.
		I just mean to say that if this all comes crumbling down, you know what's going to happen?
		You're going to have to go out and chop some wood.
		You're going to have to go out and throw some seed down for your chickens or something.
		You're going to have to buy a gun, get some land, and actually live like humans have lived for tens of thousands of years, hundreds of thousands of years.
		Do the work to survive.
		A portion of your food should be made by you.
		That's a good start.
		So, in the summer, we've been doing a garden for a while.
		We got rid of it, unfortunately, because we don't really have anybody tending to it nowadays.
		But we're going to start this process up again, and we do generate about 20 eggs per day.
		So a portion of the food we do eat is created by us.
		And here's the best part.
	Oh, right now is the best.
	Because there's chives everywhere.
	Yo, chives.
	So delicious.
	And it's just like grass on the ground.
	So I go out.
	I ride around.
	I scoop up chives right off the ground.
	We rinse them off.
	We chop them up.
	Throw them right into our food.
	They taste so good.
	It's like eating grass.
	I don't know.
	Delicious.
	I absolutely love it.
	This is what you're gonna have to do if this does break down.
	Here's the worst part of it.
	If the revolution of the left succeeds, you're probably going to be eating grass straight up.
	What they say is if you're starving, you can boil grass.
	You can take grass and chop it up and then boil it into a tea to get some nutrients out of it.
	But digesting cellulose is nigh impossible for humans, so you're not really gonna be able to eat grass.
	I read that you can eat some leaves, like deer.
	You gotta do is you gotta take the leaf off the tree, you gotta split it, you gotta rip it open and rub it on your skin, wait.
	Nothing happens, then you gotta rub it on your lip, then wait.
	Nothing happens, then you can eat a little bit, and then wait.
	Then, if everything's good, you can start eating the leaves.
	I'm not sure that's exactly what you're going to want to be doing.
	But it may be where we're going because we know what happens when the far left takes over.
	We've seen it in so many other countries.
	Now, reading about the Spanish Civil War, you get the fascists and the communists fighting, the left and the right, but we don't have that element of the right in this country.
	In Spain, they had military leaders who were right-wing.
	We don't have that here.
	We do not have that here in the U.S.
	The military is woke, and probably on purpose.
	They are weeding out people.
	Maybe some of these leaders then become militia faction leaders or something.
	I don't know.
	All I know is, with what we're seeing with the federal government being weaponized, even right now, I want to make sure to ask Congress about this tomorrow when we go to the Capitol, we hang out with Matt Gaetz.
	What's being done about this depravity and this injustice?
	I don't know.
	We may be losing control, but it doesn't mean that we lose the war.
	It just means that what we all want is for this country to remain stable and functioning, and that may not be what happens.
	I'll leave it there.
	Next segment's coming up at 1 p.m.
	on this channel.
	Thanks for hanging out.
	And I'll say it again.
	It's the one opportunity that I really have to shout out TimCast.com, but it is my birthday.
	So I will milk it for all it's worth.
	And if y'all want to get me a birthday present, go to TimCast.com, click join us, become a member, because that sustains this operation.
	We want to expand.
	We want to do a grant program where we can give people $10,000 once per month.
	One person who is working on a cultural project will give $10,000 to.
josh hammer ▲ ● ▼		Hey guys, Josh Hammer here, the host of America on Trial with Josh Hammer, a podcast for the First Podcast Network.
		Look, there are a lot of shows out there that are explaining the political news cycle, what's happening on the Hill, the this, the that.
		There are no other shows that are cutting straight to the point when it comes to the unprecedented lawfare debilitating That's me basically saying, look, it's not about the money for me, it's about winning a culture war.
		We do all of that every single day right here on America on Trial with Josh Hammer.
		Subscribe and download your episodes wherever you get your podcasts.
		America on Trial with Josh Hammer.
tim pool ▲ ● ▼		That's me basically saying, look, it's not about the money for me. It's about winning
		a culture war. And so when you become a member, we will allocate money.
		In this way.
		And probably we'll do more.
		We've got the coffee shop we're building.
		We've got a new show coming up.
		Poker with the boys.
		And I really want to win a culture war.
		So go to TimCast.com, become a member, smash the like button, share this video, and I'll see y'all at 1pm.
		In a new court filing, there is more evidence being presented that the feds were involved
		in January 6th, that they were covering up their involvement, destroying evidence and
		falsely prosecuting many individuals.
		Now, we know evidence was withheld definitively because Tucker Carlson got access to it and
		was able to present video footage showing Jake Chansley, the Q shaman, being escorted
		through the Capitol building by police, where the police actually tried to open doors for
		him, bring him to the Senate chamber by escort, and then he issues a prayer in thanks to the
		police for letting them in the building.
		In this court filing, the defense team for Dominic Pizzola is calling for a dismissal with prejudice or a mistrial, not only because of the evidence withheld, because of Jenks violations, and because of the video aired on Tucker Carlson.
		I believe this is the death knell for the January 6th narrative.
		Reading through this was shocking.
		Now, I'm not saying this man is innocent.
		I don't know.
		There is allegedly video and photo of him smashing windows with a shield entering the building, obviously in a criminal manner.
		That's allegedly, though.
		I don't know for sure it's him.
		That's not, you know, look, I'm not the prosecutor or the defense team.
		Take it with a grain of salt, the media lies.
		But it may be him.
		Maybe.
		A lot of people on January 6th were extremely violent.
		We saw very horrible videos and fighting, and I think these people should be charged.
		Here's the problem.
		If this guy, Dominic Pizzola, really did smash up Windows, when the Feds destroyed evidence and lied, they basically said he should go free.
		We do not live in a country, or I should say we should not, where you can make up, destroy, hide, obfuscate evidence, and your own involvement to prosecute someone, even if you watch him do something bad.
		Sorry.
		The exclusionary rule, Brady violations, constitutional rights, due process, these things exist, and we should not put someone in prison if the prosecutors are breaking the rules and being evil.
		Let me read for you this court filing, which I think says enough, but this is... Man, this is like... I don't know how to describe it.
		Shocking stuff.
		Shocking stuff.
		It says, Defendant Dominic Pizzola, by and through his undersigned counsel Roger Roots, Stephen Metcalf, hereby move the court for dismissal of the indictment in this case with prejudice due to recent revelations on the Tucker Carlson Show and associated testimony on Thursday, March 2nd, as well as due to Jenks and Brady violations revealed on March 8th.
		Which establish that the prosecution has been monitoring attorney-client communications of defendants, destroying evidence, and doctoring and fabricating evidence involving confidential human sources.
		Here's where it all came crumbling down.
		Background.
		During trial on Thursday, March 2nd, 2023, the prosecution in this case presented Mr. Kevin McCumber, Deputy Clerk of the U.S.
		House of Representatives, as a prosecution witness.
		McCumber is the highest-ranking official of Congress to testify in this case.
		McCumber was called to testify starting on March 2nd at about 11.45 a.m.
		McCumber has been employed by the House of Representatives for over two decades.
		He has vast knowledge of their politics, etc., etc., etc.
		I'm skipping over the part where it just breaks down that he works for Congress.
		During direct examination, McCumber showed the jury the video recordings of both the Senate Chamber and the House Chamber gaveling into recess on January 6th.
		Prosecutors have claimed that Defendant Pizzola and co-defendants caused Congress to go into recess by entering the Capitol on January 6th.
		In fact, several counts of Pizzola's indictment, including counts 2 and 3, require proof that Pizzola and co-defendants caused the recess of Congress on January 6th.
		Check this out.
		During the cross-examination, McCumber was asked about the recess of the joint session of Congress.
		During questioning by the undersigned counsel, Roots, Mr. McCumber admitted there was no need for Congress to recess on January 6th.
		McCumber testified that protesters have frequently, at least six times, in his personal experience and observation, demonstrated in the actual chamber and on the floor of the U.S.
		House.
		McCumber testified that each time the protesters were removed and the congressional session continued.
		Yet on January 6th, no demonstrators ever entered the House chamber at all.
		Mic drop.
		Let me make sure you heard that loud and clear.
		On January 6th, not a single demonstrator made it to the House floor.
		Yet previously, six times, protesters have been on the House floor and the police removed them.
	They say, for over two years, the government has claimed some of the demonstrators who were in the halls obstructed an official proceeding.
	Yet the government has steadfastly refused to identify in what way any of these defendants directly caused the recess of the joint session, despite repeated demands for disclosure of this information as potentially exculpatory evidence, whose disclosure is required under Brady v. Maryland.
	That's the Brady rule.
	McCumber's testimony plainly refutes the government's claim that defendants caused an obstruction of an official proceeding on January 6th.
	What about the Senate Chamber?
	They say even if the House could have continued without recess on January 6th, what about the Senate?
	Evidence in this trial has established that for a brief time around 2.30 to around 3.00 p.m.
	on January 6th, protesters did in fact breach the Senate Chamber.
	Inspector Lloyd of the Capitol Police testified that a protester managed to leap down onto the lower floor from the balcony and that the protester then opened a door to let other demonstrators into the Senate Chamber.
	Never during this trial has there been any evidence of any raucous or extremely disruptive violent demonstration in the Senate chamber chamber.
	There have been a few images of demonstrators sitting on chairs or standing in the well of the Senate.
	Then came the Tucker Carlson show on the evening of March 6th, 2023.
	On March 6th, Tucker Carlson released shocking footage from January 6th that showed QAnon shaman Jacob Chansley walking calmly through the halls of the Capitol with two Capitol Police officers.
	At one point, one of the officers appears to try opening a door or elevator — I believe it's a door to the Senate chamber, they described that — and then turns and leads Chansley in another direction.
	Later in the video clips, Chansley is seen walking past nine police officers gathered in a hallway intersection.
	Chansley and his police escorts walk right past the nine officers without any resistance.
	And then, the Tucker Carlson Show presented footage of officers calmly escorting Chansley and apparently other protesters into the Senate chamber.
	The Washington Post wrote that Albert Watkins, Chansley's attorney, through sentencing in November 2021, said he had been provided many hours of video by prosecutors, but not the footage which Carlson aired Monday night.
	He said he had not seen video of Chansley walking through Capitol hallways with multiple Capitol officers.
	What's deeply troubling, Watkins said, is the fact that I have to watch Tucker Carlson to find video footage which the government has, but chose not to disclose despite the absolute duty to do so.
	Despite being requested in writing to do so multiple times.
	Pizzola, likewise, has had a right to the same footage.
	If the government has withheld it, the most disturbing footage of all from the perspective of Pizzola is video shown on Tucker Carlson of protester Chansley kneeling in prayer amid a group of around two dozen demonstrators and cops in the Senate chamber.
	Chansley is shown giving a respectful prayer of thanks to the police, quote, for letting us into the building.
	The footage is plainly exculpatory.
	It as it established that the Senate chamber was never violently breached and in fact,
	was treated respectfully by January six protesters to the extent protesters
	enter the chamber. They did so under the supervision of Capitol Police. Let me drive
	that one home if to the extent they entered the chamber.
	They did so under the supervision of the Capitol Police.
	The Senators on January 6th could have continued proceedings.
	It was not Pezzolla or co-defendants who caused the Congress to recess.
	Congress interrupted its own proceedings.
	This Brady evidence was required many months ago in this case.
	Codefendant Rail demanded all information regarding reasons for Congress's recess as early as November 23rd.
	While Brady obligations do not extend to the entirety of the government, they do include investigative agencies or agencies closely related who knew or should have known that information would be material to a prosecution arising from their direct involvement.
	Here, the U.S.
	Capitol Police are directly related and fully aware of the events of January 6th.
	Here's what I think.
	I think there's a strong possibility they wanted this to happen.
	Why did they recess?
	All part of the plan, baby.
	We know that agents were involved in a previous segment I did at 10 a.m.
	We saw in a court filing that one of the agents requested the destruction of evidence which shown they were present with the Proud Boys in some circumstance.
	I'm being very careful.
	I don't know if it was on January 6 or before or planning or whatever.
	But they sought to destroy the evidence.
	They apparently said they were instructed to destroy 338 pieces of evidence.
	That is criminal!
	This agent should be arrested and charged immediately.
	This is crazy stuff.
	Let's read some more.
	Finally, a clear and flagrant Sixth Amendment violation was revealed in court on March 8th, which screams for dismissal or alternatively a mistrial to be declared immediately.
	They write in the afternoon session of trial on March 8th, it was revealed that the FBI had been
	monitoring privileged communications of co-defendant rail and his attorney and discussing rails case
	strategy amongst each other. These revelations came out as co-defendant Nordean's counsel,
	Nick Smith, cross examined FBI special agents, Agent Nicole Miller. Smith revealed that a hidden
	tab in an FBI spreadsheet showed some of Agent Miller's emails in which the FBI agent admitted
	fabricating evidence and following orders to destroy hundreds of items of evidence.
	These are communications, internal FBI communications, that were accidentally exposed, revealing that an FBI agent fabricated and destroyed evidence.
	Yo.
	If we cannot get justice here, if this case is not dismissed or declared a mistrial, then this country is already done.
	This is, this is shocking.
	They write, if justice means anything, it requires this case to be dismissed.
	A sixth amendment violation cannot be established without showing that there is a realistic possibility of injury to the defendant or benefit to the government.
	As a result of the government's intrusion into the attorney-client relationship, Further, in Weatherford, a court case, the court looked for the following.
	Tainted evidence, communication of defense strategy to the prosecution, and purposeful intrusion by the government in Weatherford v. Bercy.
	In the Nordeen case, confidential attorneys, client trial defense strategy, and position was wrongfully obtained by the government, about which was overheard, shared, utilized, where potentially, quote, 338 items of evidence were ordered to be destroyed.
	Wow.
	This is crazy.
	And we got a bunch of parentheses here. Such information benefited the government,
	and consequently, each of the defendants, including Pizzola, suffered substantial prejudice.
	Any deprivation of the right to counsel in a fair trial is in itself a basis for annulment
	of a determination resulting therefrom. To acquire a defendant to show prejudice would,
	of course, implicate and most likely intrude into the attorney-client relationship,
	a consequence hardly commendable.
	It is apparent that the only way a defendant should have to show prejudice would be to disclose what evidence he and his counsel would ever have received.
	Therefore, to require That's a quote from Briggs v. Goodwin.
	would necessarily require the disclosure of attorney-client communications.
	As a result, it is implicit that an intrusion into communications protected by the attorney-client
	privilege would be prejudicial to the defendant.
	Mere possession by the prosecutor of otherwise confidential knowledge
	about the defendant's strategy or position is sufficient in itself to establish detriment
	to the criminal defendant.
	That's a quote from Briggs v. Goodwin.
	Moreover, it would be virtually impossible for the court to sort out how any particular piece of information
	in the possession or the prosecution was consciously or subconsciously factored
	into each of its decisions.
	Mere possession by the prosecution of otherwise confidential knowledge about the defense's strategy or position Let me just stop right there.
	Y'all have seen Law & Order, right?
	That's TV, that ain't even real life.
	And they outright say in this show, I know it's a show, but they do things like the DA will be talking to the cop and the cop will say something like, listen, this guy, you gotta understand, don't tell me anything.
	They'll say, I don't wanna hear another word, you are going to get me recused or you're gonna get the case shut down.
	That's a common trope.
	The idea that privilege, there's a reason why attorney-client privilege exists.
	It's specifically this.
	They say, as highlighted in the recent defense findings of Special Agent Miller's communications, the government is responsible for deriving evidence from such communications.
	Prejudice may be presumed because advice received as a result of the defendant's disclosure to counsel must be insulated from the government, etc., etc.
	So, we get all that point.
	Conclusion.
	They say, the court should order dismissal of the indictment in this case with prejudice.
	Well, I hope they do.
	They really do.
	I don't know that this guy is, uh, innocent.
	Here's the initial statement from the DOJ.
	They say this guy was smashing windows with this shield, saying, go, go, go.
	They say that he was smoking a cigar in the building, saying, words to the effect of victory smoke in the Capitol, boys, is effing awesome.
	I knew we could take this mother-effer over if we just tried hard enough.
	Sounds like there is some potential evidence that this guy was violent and riotous.
	Oh yeah, absolutely.
	And I think anybody who did engage in this degree of violence and who rioted should be charged.
	Here's the problem.
	As I stated earlier, we don't live in that country.
	Sorry, you don't get to play these games.
	The moment you withheld evidence, the moment you destroyed evidence, the entirety of the case, done as far as I'm concerned.
	What did this guy do?
	Smash a window, enter a building.
	Not good.
	Very bad.
	A lot of violence.
	I don't like any of it.
	I would say the same thing for Antifa.
	If the U.S.
	government is using false evidence to try and convict Antifa, I would say let them go.
	That's your fault.
	The government screwed it up, and they do not get free passes.
	I don't like Antifa.
	I think they're violent, dangerous extremists.
	I'm sure there are people who think the same of the Proud Boys.
	If this guy was smashing up a window, I'd argue he is a violent and dangerous guy.
	Sorry, you don't get to lock people up for years and manipulate the machine, violate attorney-client privilege, fabricate, destroy, or withhold evidence.
	It's over.
	I look at this and I say the January 6th story is done.
	I do not believe it can persist.
	Now, in the, uh, pertaining to the issue of fairness, I want to make sure I'm presenting an honest and accurate depiction of what's going on.
	It's important to point out, Dominic Pizzola has actually tried to make filings for getting out of jail before, and this case, and the evidence that was being withheld, I do not believe directly relates to him.
	I personally don't care.
	What we're dealing with was one moment with a lot of people.
	Many of these people were bumbling doddards who walked into a building not realizing what was going on.
	The police on one side of the building opened it up and said, everybody come on inside.
	On the other side, where we have people like Dominic Pizzola allegedly, they say this is him smashing a window.
	Now look.
	Here's a picture of the guy.
	That's, you know, a mugshot, I guess.
	Can't really see it because the play button's over his face.
	And then here's the person smashing the window.
	I can't tell if that's him.
	Maybe it is.
	I'm not here to besmirch anybody.
	Even the article says a photo allegedly showing Dominic Pizzola.
	And not only that, but there was an innocent woman who had her home raided by the feds because they thought she looked like someone who went in the building.
	They saw a video of a person in the building and said, that looks like her!
	So they went and raided her house.
	Wrong.
	They made a mistake.
	It's gone too far, man.
	These latest revelations are shocking levels of corruption.
	Can I just say again?
	This morning segment, an FBI agent was telling another agent to remove their presence, destroy evidence of their involvement.
	That's right.
	Saying, go into that document and remove my name from there.
	Remove that I was present.
	That's what they said, that they were present.
	They were there.
	So to what degree were the feds involved?
	Enough.
	Enough.
	It's time to put an end to this charade.
	Now, of course, you're going to get the Democrats, the corporate press, and everybody say, it's a lie, it's a lie, it's a lie.
	Hit pieces are going to come out following this court filing, and they're going to say things like, right-wing lies, and desperate Hail Mary attempts, and all of that stuff.
	Call the Defense Council a liar.
	Here's what I want to see.
	I want to see the lawyers who presented these filings be told explicitly by the judge, you have lied to this court, you have presented false filings.
	And if that happens, and then the defense comes out and says, we're so sorry for lying about what happened in front of all of you in court, I will take these videos, I will issue a correction and a retraction on these videos.
	But here's the truth.
	In all likelihood, this is how it went down.
	The story is that they were in court and in cross-examination.
	And the defense asked the agent, look at these messages.
	It was all in front of everybody.
	And now we have, we have multiple filings.
	I think it's time they release these people.
	The problem is, the DOJ is crooked.
	That's the reality.
	This is apparently a photo of Pozzola wearing a Proud Boys shirt.
	The DOJ is crooked.
	Merrick Garland is crooked.
	The institutions are corrupt.
	Seeing a story like this, I can only say, you best start believing in Civil War stories because you're in one.
	Now, I don't know how we, uh...
	I don't know how you seek justice in this regard.
	Vote for Trump.
	If Trump wins, maybe you can start issuing pardons for these people.
	I think this guy maybe did something wrong.
	Maybe, because I don't know, I wasn't there.
	And I definitely think people were smashing up windows and storming through barricades.
	Criminal.
	Criminal.
	No problem.
	I don't care where you do it, criminal.
	But where are the Antifa prosecutions?
	Where are the stories of the same thing happening to Antifa?
	Where is the story of the FBI agents fabricating evidence against Antifa?
	Nope.
	I saw a video out of Seattle where a guy was backing away from far-left extremists.
	The cops arrested him.
	Yeah.
	He's walking backwards saying, stay away from me, stay away from me.
	The cops jump out and arrest the victim.
	Because the institutions are captured.
	Maybe it's not going to be a civil war like I said before, but it's an active revolution.
	Because if we can get this evidence and know the federal government is lying, cheating, and stealing, and nothing gets done about it, Then I think your institutions are already gone.
	And so maybe your country.
	If there are no laws that you can discernibly follow, how could there even be a country?
	It's just anarcho-tyranny.
	We have to restore the rule of law, man.
	It's the only way you can have a nation, but I think they want the nation to collapse.
	They want it to be destroyed.
	The funny thing about the Proud Boys is that they arose as sort of an inversion to what Antifa was.
	And it was a drinking club gag that turned into a, I don't know, political faction that countered Antifa.
	Where this goes, I don't know.
	I don't think the J6 charges are going to be dismissed.
	I don't think there will be a fair hearing, and there should be.
	We didn't even see anything fair for Derek Chauvin.
	Look, you can criticize Chauvin, the cop from the George Floyd case, all you want.
	But the fact that the courts told him there is no jurisdiction where you can be free from scrutiny, and then they still prosecuted him, says everything.
	If a person cannot get a fair trial, then you can't charge them.
	At least, that's what this country was supposed to be about.
	I'll leave it there.
	Next segment's coming up at 4 p.m.
	on this channel.
	Thanks for hanging out, and I'll see you all then.
	Yesterday was International Women's Day, and to celebrate International Women's Day, the Biden administration granted a biological male the International Women of Courage Award.
	This has resulted in many people being quite upset and complaining.
	And I only just got to say.
	I understand the cultural issue they're complaining about.
	I just would like to add, does anyone really care about the International Women of Courage Award?
	Can you name one recipient of this award?
	Okay, we get it.
	No one really cares about the award, but there is still an issue if we are diverting cultural iconography, merit awards, etc.
	to biological males when it's supposed to be for women.
	I like this new thing that James Lindsay is doing.
	Have you seen it?
	Women Plus?
	Women Plus!
	I love, I love that.
	It's absolutely brilliant.
	It's not about, you know, what does he say?
	Trans women are women plus.
	And it's, it's just good.
	All right, here's the story from the Post Millennial.
	They say, marking International Women's Day on Wednesday, a trans-identified male was awarded an International Women of Courage Award during the 17th Annual Secretary of State's International Women of Courage Award Ceremony.
	Oh, 17.
	Introducing Alba Rueda of Argentina to the crowd.
	The presenter said Rueda is a transgender woman who was kicked out of classrooms, barred for sitting for exams, refused job opportunities, subjected to violence, and rejected by her family.
	But in the face of these challenges, she worked to end violence and discrimination against the LGBTQ plus community in Argentina.
	You see the plus?
	It's women plus.
	That's what it is.
	I love the plus.
	The plus is fantastic.
	You see?
	Rueda was handed the presen- uh, the, oh, uh, was handed the presented with?
	Come on, post-millennial!
	Copy editor!
	Jill Biden presented the award with Secretary of State Antony Blinken.
	According to the Secretary of State's International Women of Courage Award website, Rueda is Argentina's special envoy for sexual orientation and gender identity in the Ministry of Foreign Affairs, International Trade and Worship and was the first Argentine undersecretary for diversity policies in the newly created Ministry for Women, Gender and Diversity.
unidentified		Wow!
tim pool ▲ ● ▼		Sounds like insane cult ideology.
		It's a cult.
		It is a cult.
		Seriously?
		The government's special envoy for sexual orientation?
		Right this way, sir.
		Imagine going to a border.
		You're like entering the country and they're like, can I see your passport?
		And then you pull out your passport and they're like, okay, and who do you prefer to have sex with?
		Oh, let me write that down.
		And okay, and what do you think you are?
		Oh, a giraffe.
		Oh, how about that?
		That's where we're going, I guess.
		Mr. Raida was the driving force behind Argentina's executive order on the transgender labor quota in the public sector.
		What?
		You know, everybody's like freaking out because they're like, how dare the Biden administration give a man a woman's award?
		You know, and I'm kind of like, you didn't even know the award existed, but I'm freaking out that Argentina has a government envoy and a transgender labor quota.
		I mean, co- You know what's really funny?
		Let's just- Let's go back to the notepad joke again.
		I want you all to imagine this scenario.
		Uh, okay, sir.
		Welcome to the job interview for, uh, petroleum engineer.
		And, uh, sir, do you- Which- Which genitals do you have?
		Ah, very interesting.
		You have those!
		I did not expect that.
		And, who do you prefer to have sex with?
		Really?
		Didn't expect that either.
		So we get this story that's going on for a long time about bathrooms.
		And they say, like, no trans person wants to be stopped and made to go in the wrong bathroom or whatever.
		No one should be allowed to question a trans person's gender identity.
		Because that's the idea, right?
		The idea was with the bathrooms, a trans woman will be walking to a women's bathroom and they'll say, hey, hold on there, show us your junk.
		And they were like, that's absurd.
		Or in, like, women's sports, as if a trans person or any person would have to show their genitals to prove who they are.
		You know, they make you get testosterone tests.
		But think about this.
		If there's a Transgender Labor Quota Act, that means employers are required to ask you about your junk!
		Sure, I guess!
		And, this forces trans people to out themselves.
		If you're a passing trans person, I'm sure the last thing you want to do is go to your boss and be like, I have a confession to make.
		Yes, here's the truth.
		That's, like, probably not a good thing.
		Ruey to the statement continued, actively campaigned to change the name of the National Women's Conference to the Plurinational Conference of Women and Lesbian, Crossdresser, Transgender, Bisexual, Intersex, and Non-Binary Persons to include diverse, dissident, and racialized identities.
		What?!
		Oh man, oh boy.
		Hey, you know what?
		That's Argentina for ya, I guess.
		Women presented with the award include Senator Datuk Ras Abida Radzi of Malaysia, who has committed her life to fighting for the rights of persons with disabilities in Malaysia, and after suffering a spinal injury in a car accident and an assault, Brigadier General Bolor Ganbold of Mongolia, I do think it's kind of funny that the Roja TV journalist is probably very much at odds with this Argentinian individual.
		Let me just stop right there and say, those things sound very noble, honorable, and tremendous
		respect.
		And, Meatsa Mohammed of Ethiopia, a veteran journalist and founder of Roja TV, who has
		covered survivors of gender-based violence in the country during the Northern Conflict,
		among other recipients.
		I do think it's kind of funny that the Roja TV journalist is probably very much at odds
		with this Argentinian individual.
		Imagine if they were like, you're in a nation where they're mutilating women, like biological
		females, right?
		And then all of a sudden everyone's like, no, no, no.
		People are people.
		A person is a person.
		Women are not being targeted.
	People with vaginas are being targeted.
	Uh-oh.
	We shouldn't say that because that's offensive to trans women.
	There's no line, you know?
	This is where we're going.
	So the Daily Mail actually compiled some tweets, I guess, because this is funny.
	Sarah Huckabee Sanders says, it's International Women's Day, a good time to remember that Democrats can't even tell you what a woman is.
	Fair point.
	When you ask them, they get mad and they refuse to answer.
	Dana Lash says, nice of FLOTUS to encourage the diminishment of women on International Women's Day.
	Erasing women is abusive.
	Carolyn Leavitt, why are Democrats working overtime to push the trans agenda?
	Disgraceful.
	Honest question.
	Are you okay with this?
	You see, this is the thing.
	I don't care about some garbage award from a garbage institution that is the Biden administration.
	I really don't care about it.
	It means nothing to me.
	I didn't know the award existed.
	I still don't care that it does exist.
	I think the bigger issue is you've got this cult that is destroying people's lives.
	You've got this cult.
	And it's spreading.
	I want to show you a tweet I put out.
	And, oh, Twitter does like a little birthday thing for me, a little birthday thing.
	Let me refresh that.
	So, look at the balloons!
	Whee!
	It's my birthday.
	If you want to get me a present, you can become a member at TimCast.com.
	Click join us, become a member, and help support our work.
	But let me grab, let me scroll down here.
	I want to show you the balloons, so I'm just scrolling through my, here we go.
	I have this Twitter poll I did.
	I wrote, if you have a mental disorder or illness, should you be allowed to carry guns?
	And 70%, rounding up, said no.
	And I think it's interesting, because in a blanket statement, most people say no.
	Most people following me are probably two-way gun nuts.
	Now, look, I gotta be honest.
	I'm more towards, you should.
	Sorry.
	But it depends, as many people pointed out, on the severity.
	If you can't discern between up or down, yeah, we're not going to put a gun in your hands.
	Okay?
	If you do not have the capacity to be an independent, sane adult, then you are to be in the care of somebody else.
	That's the reason I pointed this out.
	The liberals like to point out that if you're mentally ill, or suffering from some mental disorder, you should not be eligible to bear arms.
	But that would mean, according to the DSM-5, those suffering from gender dysphoria would be ineligible to keep and bear arms.
	I absolutely disagree with that.
	However, NuanceBro responds, saying, what's the mental illness?
	Are you a danger to yourselves and others?
	And I said, would you consider wanting to amputate healthy body parts as being a danger to yourself?
	And he said, where's the NuanceBro response?
	Did he delete it?
	Here we go.
	He said, ah, you're talking about the demographic with the insanely high attempted suicide rate.
	I usually say if someone is considered too dangerous to own or carry a gun, they're probably too dangerous to be out in public anyway, so I'd rather opt for involuntary detention and imprisonment instead.
	Which brings me to the main point.
	For an individual, they say.
	Actually, let me show you this story.
	Not that one.
	Here we go.
	Notorious trans activist brags about supplying illegal cross-sex hormones to trans youth, calling it life-saving medicine.
	Life-saving medications that guarantee one's safety.
	That's what they called it.
	Eli Ehrlich.
	Life-saving.
	If a child is threatening harm to themselves, do we amputate body parts?
	If a child is cutting, because teen girls cut all the time, do we then say, okay, we'll cut deeper for you?
	No, we stop them from hurting themselves.
	We don't assume that if someone is anorexic and suffering from body dysmorphia that you can affirm that dysmorphia.
	Many anorexic people recover from this and begin eating.
	Many people who are morbidly obese recover from their eating disorder and stop eating.
	But why this one?
	I don't know.
	My point is this.
	You are not saving anybody by giving them surgeries and medically altering their body.
	It's the only instance where we do it for any kind of dysmorphia.
	I think the issue is quite simple, and if someone is threatening to end their own life, we simply 5150 them.
	It means they get temporarily detained a couple days to make sure they don't end their own life.
	But hey, Biden administration, you can do whatever you want.
	I'll leave it there.
	Next segment's coming up at 6 p.m.
	on this channel.
	Thanks for hanging out, and I will see you all then.
	Alex Stein, primetime, 99.
	He's got a new show over on The Blaze, and it's been ridiculous and funny.
	He is suing Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez.
	I saw this story.
	How did I not know this was coming?
	I feel like this is one of those things where Alex Stein probably should have DM'd me and been like, hey, by the way, we're filing a lawsuit against AOC, but...
	This dude, man, he certainly has some coming.
	He keeps, he keeps, let's just say he keeps doing things that are, we'll call it interesting and press-getting, but also highlighting important issues.
	You see, here's the issue.
	Alex Stein called AOC his favorite big booty Latina.
	She blocked him on Twitter.
	He's suing her.
	When he did that, I was critical.
	And then, after that, she came out and talked about the police on January 6th who aided and abetted the January 6th protesters.
	And I said, wow, that's a really good point.
	AOC said it was an inside job.
	That was only because of Alex Stein.
	She was responding, basically, to what happened, saying that she was not safe with people like him around.
	And so, it's kind of a weird situation where his prank, or whatever you want to call it, resulted in her saying something rather profound.
	Now he's suing.
	And he's highlighting, once again, something interesting.
	When Donald Trump blocked people on Twitter...
	They sued and won, saying that as a government official, he did not have the right to block people who violated their First Amendment rights.
	Alex Stein is basically making that argument against AOC.
	She's been sued before, but let's see what happens now.
	CNBC reports, a political provocateur sued Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez on Wednesday for blocking him on Twitter after he heckled her outside the U.S.
	Capitol, shouting crude remarks about her body and her position on abortion.
	Calling the New York Democrat his favorite big booty Latina, comedian Alex Stein yelled to the lawmaker that he loved her as she entered the building on July 13th in a video he posted online.
	She wants to kill babies, but she's still beautiful.
	You look very beautiful in that dress.
	You look very sexy.
	Look at that booty on AOC, he catcalled to Ocasio-Cortez.
	Look how sexy she looks in that dress.
	Ooh, I love it, AOC.
	Hot, hot, hot, like a tamale.
unidentified		Making me read Alex Stein quotes.
tim pool ▲ ● ▼		Stein's lawsuit cites a federal appeals court decision that ruled against Trump, saying he violated the constitutional rights of several people by blocking them from following him on Twitter.
		The appeals court said Trump was acting in his official presidential capacity when he blocked these people.
		Just days after the ruling, In Friday, November 2019, Ocasio-Cortez apologized to and settled a case with former Brooklyn Assemblyman Dov Hickand, who sued her for blocking him on her AOC Twitter account in response to critical replies to her tweets.
		In that case, Ocasio-Cortez lifted the block and said he has a First Amendment right to express his views and should not be blocked for them.
		Stein is looking for the same response in his suit in U.S.
		District Court in D.C.
		I really don't have any hard feelings for AOC, Stein said, adding that this is not looking for monetary damages in the case.
		I really would like to have her unblock me, he said, noting that would allow him to communicate with her.
		Look at this charming photo of, you know, Alex here with a big ol' smile on his face.
		Look at this guy, huh?
		Ocasio-Cortez's office and lawmakers who represented her in the prior Twitter block lawsuit did not immediately respond to requests for comment on Stein's suit.
		If the Congresswoman fights the complaint, it would reopen the legal argument about the rights of political figures to prevent certain individuals or groups from following them on social media platforms.
		In 2021, the Supreme Court erased the second U.S.
		Circuit Court of Appeals ruling that Trump had violated the First Amendment rights of the people he had blocked from his Twitter account while serving in the White House.
		The Supreme Court ordered the appeals court to dismiss the case as moot.
		Because Trump, by then, was a private citizen.
		The High Court's order meant the Second Court's ruling could no longer be used as a precedent for similar cases of elected officials blocking Twitter followers.
		Ocasio-Cortez's legislative district lies within the confines of the Second Circuit.
		Stein's case is also seen as being different than the ones involving Trump and Ocasio-Cortez because his block was issued due to statements he made in person, not on an online account.
		I don't know if that matters.
		Ocasio-Cortez tweeted out Stein's video of the encounter that same day, calling it a deeply disgusting incident, and that Stein was clearly seeking extremist fame.
		Quote, I'll just read what she tweeted this.
		I posted about a deeply disgusting incident that happened today on the Capitol steps, but took it down because it's clearly someone seeking extremist fame.
		It's just a bummer to work in an institution that openly allowed this, but talking about it only invites more.
		Just really sad.
		Hey, Ocasio-Cortez, people are allowed to say things to you.
		That's it.
		What did he say?
		He said you had a big booty and he loved you?
		Yes.
		He was intending to get a rise out of you through legal speech and he got it.
		You then started complaining and that... There you go.
		Thank you.
		You could have just said nothing, but you decided to use your platform.
		With how many millions of followers does AOC have?
		Let's pull up her Twitter.
		13.4 million followers.
		Amazing.
		She decided to use that platform to promote Alex Stein, thus launching him into the public discourse, making him famous.
		Here is a video he posted of the incident.
		I was actually walking over to deck him because if no one will protect us, then I'll do it myself, but I need to catch a vote more than a case today.
		Actually, if you watch the video, and she posted it actually, okay, we're gonna play this video.
		She doesn't come over to Deckham, she gives him a peace sign.
unidentified		See, my favorite big booty Latina, I love you AOC, you're my favorite.
		She wants to kill babies, but she's still beautiful.
		You look very beautiful in that dress.
		You look very sexy.
		Look at that booty on AOC, that's my favorite big booty Latina.
tim pool ▲ ● ▼		Why don't we get a little selfie?
		She walks over.
		Does this look like somebody who wants to fight?
		No.
		I don't think AOC knew what he was saying until afterwards.
		She's such a liar.
unidentified		Ooh, what did she say?
		What did she say?
		She said something.
tim pool ▲ ● ▼		AOC, look how sexy she looks.
		Ooh, what did she say?
		She said something.
unidentified		AOC, nice to meet you, AOC.
tim pool ▲ ● ▼		Look how sexy she looks.
tim pool ▲ ● ▼		I can't really tell what's being said afterwards.
unidentified		Look at that dress!
tim pool ▲ ● ▼		Ooh, I love it, AOC!
unidentified		Hot, hot, hot like a tamale!
tim pool ▲ ● ▼		Hot like a tamale.
		I think what happened is, after she saw somebody on the steps yelling, she was like, peace sign!
		And then someone was like, dude, he was saying it a big booty.
		She probably went, what?
		Got mad, and then was like, ooh, I'm so angry, I'm gonna tweet about it.
		In addition to calling out Stein for his comments, she also blocked him.
		But what does this say?
		She was threatening violence against him?
		She actually, this is kind of the crazy thing.
		She says, I was actually walking over to deck him.
		You were going to strike this man because he was yelling at you?
		Yo, come on.
		AOC, calm down.
		The suit said she blocked him in retaliation to Stein's exercise of his First Amendment right, because earlier that day, Mr. Stein, in the context of political commentary and satire, complimented Ms.
		Cortez.
		Mr. Stein has a constitutional right to access Ms.
		Cortez's Twitter account as part of his vigorous public comment and criticism.
		Ms.
		Cortez's practice of blocking Twitter users she disagrees with is unconstitutional, and this suit seeks to redress that wrong.
		Boy, I would love to see Alex Stein on the debate stage or running for office.
		It would be one of the greatest things ever.
		Uh, anyway.
		Stein's lawyer, Jonathan Gross, in an interview said the ref- reference to Ocasio-Cortez's body is a satire, and the reference to her support for abortion rights is obviously political.
		My client is a political satirist.
		Political speech, the Supreme Court has said, is the highest level of protected speech.
		But Groh said that regardless of what Stein said, the New York Congresswoman does not have the legal right to block him on Twitter.
		In his interview with CNBC, Stein said, I didn't really want to disrespect her.
		It was the most gracious way I could say it, complimenting her.
		Stein has a history of confronting other politicians, including Ted Cruz,
		and Eric Swalwell has gained a reputation for being a right-wing comedian,
		but he objects to the label.
		Really, I'm anti-establishment.
		Alex Stein is not right-wing, and he's not conservative.
		I know, because he's been on this show multiple times, and he's talked about his political views, and he's moderate.
		He's moderate.
		In fact, he's probably a traditional liberal.
		No joke.
		But he's a funny guy.
		And he's calling out the machine in a rather clever and funny way.
		So we've actually had him guest on some Cast Castle episodes as well.
		Man, this is the kind of stuff we need.
		I've repeatedly said that we need someone who's going to throw a figurative pie.
		And this is exactly what Alex Stein does.
		He's got a new show on The Blaze.
		I don't know if you've saw it.
		I don't know if you've seen it.
		Forgive me for that.
		Oh, jeez, my grammar.
		But it's hilarious, they've got a great set.
		And I've not watched a ton of it, I've just seen some clips, and he's a funny guy.
		But this is the kind of stuff that we need.
		We need people who are going to challenge the machine, make a mock of it, make it funny, and poke fun.
		This kind of trolling, I think, is perfect.
		It is non-violent, it's rather harmless.
		In fact, Alex Stein, when he goes out and he sees the protesters, he smiles and says, I love you, I love you, I love you.
		And they lose their minds!
		It's brilliant.
		How could you get mad at someone saying, I love you guys, I love you, you're the best, thank you for protesting, and they're just so mad about it?
		Not to mention, Alex Stein's a tall guy, so when they try and shove stuff in his face, he just holds the phone up real high, and they can't block it, and they're like waving at it, because they're all very short.
		Yeah.
		Anyway, I don't know.
		Good on you, Alex Stein.
		I think this one's funny.
		We'll see how it plays out in the courts.
	Maybe we'll reopen the whole issue, and thus, no one will be allowed to block anybody if you work for the government.
	The next segment will be coming up on this channel in just a few minutes.
	Thanks for hanging out, and I will see you all then.
	Today, Matt Taibbi and Michael Schellenberger testified before Congress, and it's insane.
	I just don't understand.
	Look, we all know Matt Taibbi and Schellenberger are journalists working on this story.
	We know Matt Taibbi is a long and storied journalist with multiple awards and books under his name.
	But Congress seems to lose their absolute minds, mostly the Democrats, and I believe I can play for you a video before we get into this story that proves it's a cult and they're lying to you.
	Please, for the love of all that is holy.
	For those that have friends and family who don't believe it or can't believe it, I know, maybe this won't change their minds, but you must just keep showing them.
	And maybe at a certain point after the 50th time you do this, you can look them in the eye and say, you are lying to me.
	Why are you lying to me?
	There is no way after everything I've shown you, you still believe this.
	Look at this video.
	Rep Stacey Plaskett says this.
unidentified		And to praise him for his work.
unidentified		This isn't just a matter of what data was given to these so-called journalists before us.
tim pool ▲ ● ▼		Now, there are many legitimate questions— You notice how the camera works, how they edit this.
		Oh, I think this was live.
		She calls them so-called journalists, and then Matt Taibbi looks over, confused, like, did she just insult us?
unidentified		There are many legitimate questions about where Musk got the financing to buy Twitter.
unidentified		We know for a fact that foreign countries like Qatar... Now let me play for you Matt Taibbi's response.
matt taibbi ▲ ● ▼		That time was spent at Rolling Stone Magazine.
		Ranking member Plaskett, I'm not a so-called journalist.
		I've won the National Magazine Award, the IF Stone Award for Independent Journalism, and I've written ten books, including four New York Times bestsellers.
tim pool ▲ ● ▼		It is insane that you can have someone question Matt Taibbi of all people.
		Let's get down to it.
		Republican Jim Jordan claims there was a cozy relationship between the government and Big Tech, and claims FBI schemed to censor Hunter's laptop in hearing with Twitter Files journalists.
		And he would be correct.
		In one instance, Schellenberger is at, I believe it's, um, either of them are at, I can't remember which one.
		Did the government direct censorship?
		And it was Michael Schellenberger, he says, yes.
		And he goes, how?
		And he's like, there's an email where he says, hey, flagging these to you for removal.
		And he says, so you think flagging something for removal is a direct demand?
		Well, I think, Matt, and I was really tempted to like, can I DM them right now?
		I don't know if their phones are working or if the rules are on DMing someone during a live congressional hearing.
		Yo, we had that dude from the New York Times who got suspended because it was the Biden administration contacted Twitter and says, why has this guy not been banned?
		Okay, so there is direct evidence.
		And I wonder if I can pull up that story.
		Democrats, because I didn't have this pulled up.
		Uh, earlier.
		Let me see if I can, uh... Oh, the only thing that's coming up is when I search for this.
		Okay, I think I found it.
		Well, I found this story from the old one.
		Alex Berenson was banned.
		They call him a conservative journalist.
		He got unbanned after winning a lawsuit.
		And he got banned because the government requested he be banned.
		It's a fact.
		So here's the funny thing.
		Here's the reason why I want to talk about this.
		I wanted you to see that clip of a member of Congress insinuating that Matt Taibbi's not a journalist.
		He's been a journalist for 30 years.
		I went down to Occupy Wall Street knowing who Matt Taibbi was.
		He wrote for Rolling Stone.
		And he was heavily praised by the left and by Democrats for the work that he had done.
		And now that he's continuing to do the same kind of speaking truth to power, all of a sudden, he's a so-called journalist.
		Funny how that works.
		It is a cult.
		Sorry, that's the reality.
		Take a look at this.
		The House panel probing the weaponization of the federal government and the subsequent release of the Twitter files kicked off with a fiery start.
		The chairman's opening statements included a tirade against the cozy relationship between big tech and government agencies.
		Jordan claimed that Twitter executives were tipped off that the Bidens would be the target of a hack and leak operation by U.S.
		government officials, including the Department of Homeland Security and the Office of the Director of National Intelligence.
		What a coincidence, Jordan snarked.
		Yep.
		Plast get retorted that Republicans are pushing a misleading narrative and possess questionable motives.
		I just don't know how to an- I- I- I don't- You all know.
		And what?
		They're lying.
		Like, how much evidence do you need that they're lying?
		Go watch the episode of Joe Rogan that I did with Vijay Gade and Jack Dorsey and compare and contrast that to the information we have learned today.
		And you will see outright, these people are evil.
		I even questioned Jack Dorsey.
		I think he tries to pretend that he's not in on this game.
		But I think he is.
		Vijay Gade lied.
		They were directly working with the government.
		How about this?
		Vijay Gade was in meetings with government officials.
		They were having meetings.
		Tell me that there was no direct COSI involvement.
		There is something going on between Congressional Republicans and Elon Musk, she said.
		Mr. Chairman, Americans can see through this.
		Musk is helping you out politically, and you're going out of your way to promote and protect him and to praise him for his work.
		Ridiculous, snapped Jordan, as he continued to bicker with Plaskett, who complained the Democrats didn't get access to letters from the Federal Trade Commission until 8 p.m.
		the night before the hearing.
	In his opening statement, Taibbi told the panel that he has attracted intense public interest
	when the first Twitter Files reports came out.
	My computer looked like a slot machine, as just the first tweet about the blockage of
	the Hunter Biden laptop story registered 143 million impressions and 30 million engagements.
	I will say this.
	this.
	Matt Taibbi was an excellent choice for giving this information to.
	I do not believe that Barry Weiss was the appropriate individual to receive access to this information.
	I guess I'll put it this way.
	I think Barry Weiss is great.
	The work she does is good.
	But she's one of those people that I believe plays a middle-of-the-road game where I'm willing to bet she would feign ignorance on a certain subject to not go too far to the right.
	But that's just my personal opinion, and I'm more than happy to have a discussion with Barry about that subject matter.
	Maybe she's just not informed on a lot of these issues.
	What ended up happening was after she was granted access to the Twitter files, she actually came out and was critical of Elon in some capacity.
	Elon then, you know, was critical back, but the idea was he wasn't just giving information to people who were favorable, acting favorably towards him.
	I think the Twitter files should have been given to many different organizations.
	I believe it should have been handled much more like the NSA release in that he should have chosen like five to ten different organizations and given them access.
	He did not.
	It was only later on we learned that one of the guys blocking access to this information was a former FBI lawyer.
	He says, quote, We learned Twitter, Facebook, Google, and other companies developed a formal system for taking and moderation requests from every corner of government, the FBI, DHS, HHS, DOD, the Global Engagement Center at State, even the CIA.
	Undeniably, making such lists is a form of digital McCarthyism.
	He says, We just saw this with the COVID lab leak theory.
	Many of the institutions we are now investigating initially labeled the idea that it came from a lab as disinformation.
	Now apparently even the FBI takes it seriously.
	The First Amendment and an American population accustomed to the right to speak
	is the best defense left against the censorship industrial complex, he wrote.
	If there's anything the Twitter files show, it's that we're in danger of losing this most
	precious right, without which all other democratic rights are impossible.
	Metaibi pointed out there are leftists and liberals who are suspended and banned as well.
	Yet they still tried to make it about the right.
	Why?
	Because Democrats are evil.
	They are... I'm sorry, that's just a reality.
	Democrats on the January 6th Select Committee withheld evidence that could have exonerated many people.
	Notably, Jake Chansley, who was seen being escorted around the Capitol.
	They withhold this information.
	They lie to you because they want power.
	And that's the game they're playing now.
	This so-called journalist, Matt Taibbi, that was impressive to me.
	So-called journalist?
	Matt Taibbi is one of, like, he is THE journalist.
	He's like today's THE journalist guy, you know?
	Name a journalist.
	Like, name a real journalist who has a history of challenging those in power.
	Yeah, Matt Taibbi's like the dude.
	Hopefully we can get him on IRL at some point, but he doesn't live too close.
	Ideally, I can get him on the Friday morning show, The Culture War Podcast with Tim Pool.
	Check that out at youtube.com slash timcast.
	Last week's episode was Pete Parata, formerly of The Offspring, explaining how he got replaced because he was unable to get the vaccine and opposed the mandates.
	And, uh, we got a really great episode coming up tomorrow.
	But, uh, I'm gonna- I'm gonna wind this one down with saying just a couple more things.
	It is my birthday.
	And you all know.
	And I know.
	I'm shamelessly telling you all it's my birthday over and over again because if there was ever an excuse for me to be like, become a member at TimCast.com to support our work, it is certainly today of all days.
	And we got a bunch of other stuff coming out.
	We got a, uh, a new song coming out, I believe, on the 24th.
	So the pre-orders are available for that.
	I'll get the link, I guess.
	I'm kind of taking today a little bit easy, because it is my birthday, but still working.
	Anyway, I'll wrap it up there.
	Thanks for hanging out.
	Next segment will be at 8 p.m.

▲